Winston wins me over

I know, what a tacky title for a blogpost. But to be frank I don't really care what you think, because I am buddies with Lord Professor Robert Winston - the guy with the big moustache on telly who knows all about human behaviour! By buddies of course I mean we are on email terms - althought I have stood face-to-face with the man himself taking his picture. Now that I've got your attention, please do read on.

On May the 12th good old Bob came to Manchester to give us postgrads a talk to promote his new book 'Bad Ideas', which you can scope out here if you haven't already heard of it. This was a lecture I had been anticipating for weeks, as Winston was a childhood hero of mine. I used to religiously tape (VHS of course; it was the 90's after all!) his moustache-muffled science musings in the form of The Human Body, Human Instinct and The Human Mind.

To a neuroscientist like myself, Winston is what Sir David Attenborough is to a zoologist - practically a God of Wisdom. So when people queued up after the fully booked event, I naturally joined this line, after a quick internal debate as to whether I actually had a clever question to ask him. Disappointingly, many before me intended only to get their picture taken with him with a cheesy grin on. My stomach churned when I saw one of my friends commit this unholy deed. If a musician met John Lennon, would he really ask him to "say cheeeeese!"? I doubt it. Anyhew, the self-indulgent facebook-enthusiasts in the line before me meant that the Professor was ushered out of the building before I got my chance to pose my question.

I pushed aside my annoyance and remembered what Bob had said in the beginning of his talk - that he always replies to students' emails. So I trotted home determinedly and decided to write to him. Despite the Professor's promise, I never imagined I'd get a reply within 45 minutes of pressing 'Send'. What was even more remarkable was that this genius with no less than eight titles behind his name (check out his achievements here), considered my query as "A good question".

I guess at this point you're wondering what I asked him? I'll take you through the essence of it. Winston argued in his talk that the great technological advances of our times - microchips and the contraceptive pill included - have been largely made NOT due to goal-oriented conduction of scientific research, but rather haphazardly, with their wider societal utility having been revealed only retrospectively. Indeed, this is true. In fact, many drugs, such as cancer drugs, penicillin and antipsychotics (used for schizophrenia and hallucinations), were not discovered because scientists set out to find treatments for these conditions. Rather, these successful drugs were designed for for different purposes, and were later shown to work more of less perfectly for the conditions that they are used for today. Only after this discovery did researchers figure out the mechanisms of why they worked so well. In this way, these drugs were produced by a method that can be viewed as the opposite of goal-oriented medical research, which takes the mechanism of a disease as a starting point, and then designs drugs to stop the disease.

My question was: should we change our thinking of how to conduct and fund scientific research when for example much of medicinal research is based on curing diseases (i.e. 'goal-directed science')? I asked Professor Winston whether he had ideas on what would be the alternative to 'goal-directed science', if this is more likely to lead to greater advances in terms of societal benefit?

Winston's reply was that "we need to make sure we continue to devote a substantial part of the budget to non-orientated, blue skies research". This was his suggestion for an alternative to the goal-oriented medicinal research I was talking about. He continued: "Actually I am not sure that you are right about medical research - which mostly is not focused on finding cures, but rather exploring phenomena and mechanisms. Certainly this is true of the MRC and even Cancer Research UK, which funds a huge amount of basic human and cell biology." The Professor had left me corrected. The answer didn't leave me satisfied on what the future direction of medical research should be - but I guess that's why we have politicians!

Coming back from a family Bank Holiday, I saw Winson was back on the BBC again! This time the Professor was probing human personality. I learnt that being 'agreeable' won't get you a big salary, but does forbode good health and better relationships. Definitely something to consider when sorting out one's priorities! I wanted to take 'The Big Personality' test myself - but the website has been experiencing "major technical problem" since the airing of the program. You can try your luck yourself by clicking here: BBC's BIG PERSONALITY TEST

And if this really grabbed your attention, you can read more in 'Bad Ideas?' which is currently on sale for less than half price on Amazon: Hooray for credit crunch price busters!

Photohappiness

My photography is being taken seriously! Hence blogpost to celebrate. Reasons:

A photo I took of rainy Curry Mile (Rusholme) will be featured in a promotional leaflet produced by the Manchester Careers Service Graduate Internship Programme.


You can see the entire showreel of great Manchester photography here. I wasn't shortlisted, but to be fair, I was up against some pretty magnificent photographers, so please feast your eyes on the showreel!

This week I got an email from the WHO, i.e. the World Health Organisation, requesting authorisation to a picture I took of Ellen 't Hoen, an advocate for the UNITAID HIV/AIDS patent pool initiative, in November 2009. The image will be featured in a magazine called Managing IP. My photos have been featured in Student Direct : Mancunion before, but as subeditor I've obviously had the freedom to choose to put in my own images, so this feels like a greater achievement and recognition for my work in comparison.

This leaves me feeling very inspired to pursue my photopassion! :)

The look of love – or the scent of seduction?

My first co-written article featured in Student Direct : Mancunion, originally written by Ms Emma Bishop and edited by me! This article was also published online on the SD website.

Everyone has their own idea of who is their ‘perfect’ man or woman although we can’t always tell why we find someone attractive. So what is it exactly that draws you to some people, and not others? Research seems to suggest that the answer lies within evolution.

You probably thought that good looks is the main factor determining attraction. Luckily, science has shown that humans are not quite as superficial as this, as a person’s unique smell also plays a role. Have you ever found someone’s scent irresistible? This is evolution’s way of attracting you to someone with a different immune system to your own. Why? To make healthier and more infection-resistant offspring. In molecular terms this means that your ideal man or woman will have a different molecule involved in your immune response, called Major Histocompatibility Complex or MCH.

During fertilisation, a unique mixture of the mother’s and father’s genes encoding for MHC will be passed on to the offspring. When the two genes are different from each other, genetic variation is produced and this can in turn give rise to a stronger immune system. Thus, one way to explain attraction is that it is based on the differences in your and your love interest’s genes.

Amazingly, your brain can recognise different versions of MCH and signal a potential partner’s evolutionary compatibility. The smell of these molecules can determine whether someone is an ideal partner if they vary from your own MHC. In fact, some dating websites have begun to use this difference in immune systems to actually match up couples via the internet! These so-called ‘DNA dating sites’, such as www.scientificmatch.com, promise that genetic variation between couples leads to not only higher fertility rates, but also better sex and ‘a lower chance of cheating’ on your partner!

So apart from there being literal ‘chemistry’ between an ideal couple, do superficial traits still contribute to attraction? The answer is yes. In women, large eyes and breasts tend to be rated as ‘more attractive’ to men. Again evolution plays a role, in that women with larger eyes and breasts tend to have more of the sex hormone oestrogen produced by their body. This means that these females are more likely to be fertile, and this is interestingly enough signalled in their looks. So, although most men may not realise it, when settling for a girl with either of these attributes, they are unconsciously choosing a woman that is more fertile and will most likely produce more offspring.

Such scientific evidence becomes even more intriguing when put in a wider context. We must ask ourselves: in a society where women are pressurised to push up their breasts and lash on the mascara – are we actually hampering with natural selection?

Stress – getting the balance right

Trouble sleeping, excessive snacking, heart palpitations? Oh yes - it’s revision time! Although all these negative symptoms can be attributed to the release of stress hormones – you’ll be relieved to know that stress can also help you remember. Just last month, scientists finally cracked the cellular mechanism by which stress hormones boost long-term memory.

The main hormone released during stress is called cortisol, which is a naturally occurring steroid just like testosterone and estrogen. At times of excessive stress, the rise in cortisol levels is accompanied by the release of noradrenaline, a signalling molecule related to the more familiar fight-or-flight hormone, adrenaline. This explains the racing heart and elevated blood pressure that you may experience at peak revision time. But how does a stress hormone affect memory?
We know from animal studies in birds and mammals that stress hormones have dual effects on learning and memory. Short-term stress enhances learning. This is why you can recall traumatic events in detail, but wouldn’t be able to remember what you had on your toast yesterday morning. Thus, a slightly elevated cortisol level is good for strengthening memories.

Exactly how stress enhances long-term memory formation has now been revealed by a study conducted in the Netherlands and The University of California. The study involved mimicking stressful conditions by injecting glucocorticoids, which is the rodent version of cortisol. Results showed that the injection caused an increase in production of proteins needed for long-term memory in the hippocampus, a key brain structure required for memory formation. Interestingly, this effect was mediated by switching on gene production, through direct chemical modification of DNA. In fact, the hippocampus contains the highest density of glucocorticoid receptors in the central nervous system – meaning its activity is easily modulated by stress hormones.

However, as we all know, too much of the good stuff is always bad for you. This is the case for cortisol also, as long-term stress can be detrimental for memory formation. Again, neuroscientists have dutifully provided us with an explanation. Learning and memory deteriorates when elevated glucocorticoids trigger cell death and inhibition of brain cells in the hippocampus. As mentioned above, these cells are vital for forming new memories, explaining why their inhibition leads to disrupted learning.

As a final note of warning, long-term exposure to stress hormones has been shown to cause damage to your body beyond just brain cells. Studies in various species have shown that over time, elevated glucocorticoids ultimately lead to premature death. The reason for this has been related to the fact that these hormones activate severe inflammatory cascades in the body.

So, remember, even though the exams are stressful, they are not worth risking your health and sanity! And in moderation, a healthy amount of exam fear can even be your memory-boosting friend.

This article was also published in Student Direct: Mancunion on the 3rd of May 2010. It can be accessed here.